Society and Social Structures

Woolf Institute: Butler-Slush and the demand for more multifaith mish-mash


So, the Woolf Institute, whose declared mission is concerned with “combining theology with the social sciences and the humanities”, in pursuit of “interfaith” “social solidarity” and “common purpose”, convenes a Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life (full title: Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life: community, diversity and the common good), whose members include Muslims, Hindus, Atheist-Humanists, liberal Christians, inter-faith theologians, sociologists and proponents of “Equality and Human Rights”, who issue a Report which calls for more multifaith mish-mash and less robust Christianity in public life, and we’re appalled and disappointed and/or surprised and shocked?

What is wrong with people? This is a private institution with a theologically pluralist mission, which crammed its multi-ethnic commission with diverse academics and sundry lobbyists who have a pre-ordained theo-political agenda, and that agenda is concerned with the diminution (if not the eradication) of Christianity (ie anachronistic Anglican Establishment) from public life, in favour of a more tolerant secular space of generic spirituality to better reflect the pluralism and multiculturalism of modernity.

This is not a credible report because it was not a plausible commission. Baroness Butler-Sloss can call for a “new settlement” if she wishes, but who is she? A peerage does not bestow the authority to chip away at the foundations of the historic Anglican Settlement: our values, traditions, culture, language and law are based upon it, and it isn’t called a settlement for nothing. It is settled. We have received our national revelation, and its preservation against historic onslaughts and boundless scepticism is evidence of its claims. British society is not neutrally agnostic: the Anglican canopy permits and protects the fundamental freedoms of religious argument and belief.

This Woolf Institute Commission isn’t worth the effort of condemning. Its Report has no more credibility than a political manifesto, and no more constitutional authority than a copy of the Beano.

  • Dreadnaught

    Another bloody talking shop. There is only one faith that exhorts extreme violence as remedy for resistance to its dominance. Take that out of it’s ‘Beano book of ordained terror’ and we can all get along, even in challenging ‘what has Mohammad ever done for us?’
    ps I am offended by that smiling, gorgeous mock-up hijab wearing floosie – try getting away with that in Raqqa. The western girl looks as if she’s just spotted a knife wielding sister in black, sprinting across the road to show her the error of her ways.

  • CliveM

    Thank you YG. I watched the TV and read various online reports and none of them (I admit I may have missed it) so concisely outline the authority and credibility of this report.

    It’s recommendations were pre-destined, as it were.

  • B flat

    If Baroness Butler-Sloss is too old to be administering justice according to the law of the land, why is she considered fit to preside over a further dismantling of the Constitution at public expense? Do the members of this commission serve anyone apart from themselves?
    Perhaps in their proposal of a new spiritual climate, they want us simply to acquiesce in, and subscribe to their own mutual adoration.

    Diversity, community and the common good? It’s simply the new religion of Humbuggery!

  • Orwell Ian

    No surprises in this report. Its subversive proposals were pre-ordained from start to finish. A compliment to the opinions of minds in high places that were already made up.

    Historically there were Catholic plots against a Protestant Sovereign. Now we have
    a plot to undermine the Settlement. All part of the grand strategy to abolish Britain as a sovereign nation and cage us forever in the european dystopia, devoid of any sense of identity.

    I sympathise with Cranmers contempt for this document but if Prime Minister’s can
    already pack the House of Lords to the rafters with multiculturalists they will likely find a way to superannuate bishops and stuff it (and us) with a broader selection of multifaith compromisers.

  • Andrew Price

    Don’t you dare knock the beano!

  • that agenda is concerned with the diminution (if not the eradication) of Christianity from public life

    If the founder of the Woolf Institute, Edward Kessler, sees the world in a similar light to Rabbi Baruch Efrati, it is no great surprise that his institute should promote the eradication of Christianity, and not just from public life either:

    Rabbi Baruch Efrati, a yeshiva head and community rabbi in the West Bank settlement of Efrat, believes that the Islamization of Europe is actually a good thing.

    …the Islamization of Europe was better than a Christian Europe for ethical and theological reasons—as a punishment against Christians for persecuting the Jews and the fact that Christianity, as opposed to Islam, is considered ‘idolatry’ from a halachic point of view.

    ‘Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years [we] were in exile there.’

    ‘We will never forgive Europe’s Christians for slaughtering millions of our children, women and elderly… Not just in the recent Holocaust, but throughout the generations, in a consistent manner which characterizes all factions of hypocritical Christianity.’

    ‘Europe is losing its identity in favor of another people and another religion, and there will be no remnants and survivors from the impurity of Christianity, which shed a lot of blood it won’t be able to atone for.’

    Islam, the rabbi added, is ‘a religion which misjudges its prophets but is relatively honest.’

    Efrati ruled, therefore, that ‘even if we are in a major war with the region’s Arabs over the Land of Israel, Islam is still much better as a gentile culture than Christianity.’

    • The Explorer

      Interestingly, it isn’t Christians who are currently making Europe unsafe for Jews; and driving them, particularly, out of France and Sweden.

      • Tutanekai

        Perhaps the good rabbi understands that an honest enemy is much easier to defend yourself against than a false friend.

        Christians maintain that they don’t want to do anyone any harm. But a quick look at the history of the religion reveals just how false a claim that is. The moment that Christians take any real power, they use it to persecute those who refuse to comply with the dictates of their religion. A desire to evangelize very quickly turns into a desire to impose and compel, and to punish those who won’t cooperate.

        How many victims have Christians sent to their deaths whilst crying crocodile tears and loudly proclaiming their love for them?

        • The Explorer

          So it’s Christians beating up Jews in Sweden and desecrating synagogues?

          It was Christians who tied Ilan Halimi to a tree and set fire to him, after first cutting off one of his ears and mashing his testicles? It was Christians who attacked a Jewish supermarket at the time to Charlie H? It’s Christians stabbing Jews on a daily basis in Israel? It was a Christian who said he’d like every Jew in the world in Israel, so that he could drive the lot into the sea in one go?

          As for an honest enemy, does the good rabbi know about taqiyya?

          • Sam

            Whilst Johnny foams at the mouth , meanwhile outside of his alternative reality bubble, a group of orthodox Rabbis have called for a partnership between Jews ….and [GASP!!! And the defibrillator for Johnny ] Christians:


          • bluedog

            That makes complete sense. Both religions are founded on the same moral premises. Islam is the antithesis.

          • Tutanekai

            I’m not surprised you can’t count the victims of Christian persecution. I doubt anyone can. Who knows exactly how many were burned at the stake for heresy, or how many perished at the point of a crusader’s or conquistador’s sword?

            The only reason Christians can no longer persecute anyone is because their power to do so has been curtailed by the State. But go somewhere like Africa and speak to any member of the gay community and then you’ll see the modern face of Christian persecution. Priests who preach pure hatred and then stand by wringing their hands in mock disapproval as their baying congregations lynch or “necklace” gay people. “Tut, tut!” they say. “You really shouldn’t be doing that to those disgusting perverts who are planning to rape your children, but I can’t stop you, so come and see me afterwards and pretend to be sorry and I’ll absolve you…”

            Give a Christian an inch and he’ll take ten miles. Whatever he thinks he can get away with, he’ll do. The fact that, in the UK at least, Christianity tries to sell itself as a religion of peace is solely down to the fact that any power it once enjoyed has been transfered to the secular state. if it could still try us for heresy and condemn us to burn, it would. While bleating on about love and compassion and forgiveness.

            Give me overt Muslim hatred any day. At least it’s honest.

          • Anton

            You would do well to read the New Testament.

          • The Explorer

            A lot of necklacing etc in Africa seems to be political/economic, rather than religious. It was done to black South-African policeman. Before it was banned on You Tube, there was a video of South-African blacks stoning a Somali shopkeeper to death for taking their jobs. It seems that’s how things are done out there. Who are we to criticise, when all cultures are equal?

            The Crusaders were bad, but violence seems par for the course in the ME. When the Turkish Sultan Murad IV captured Baghdad, he is said to have slaughtered fifty thousand in celebration. An exulting Turk hurled a lighted torch that landed in an ammunition pile. Bang! Murad, annoyed, slaughtered another fifty thousand.

            I suspect fewer died under conquistadors’ swords than died under the obsidian knives of Aztec priests. Cortez could not have succeeded without the help of tribes tired of providing daily human sacrifices.

            “Give me overt Muslim hatred any day. At least it’s honest.” Be careful what you wish for. You may get it sooner than you’d like.

          • chiefofsinners

            You sound like Donald Trump. Judging all Christians by the acts of some who claim the name, just as he judges Muslims.

          • Anton

            Will you say that when it comes your way?

      • @ The Explorer—Jews and Muslims having collaborated in centuries past, Jews may have expected history to repeat itself today, failing to foresee (for which no one can blame them) that Arab oil wealth would lead to a new Islamic confidence and the international promotion of an Islam hostile to Jews. Collaboration is still on the cards

        ‘Jews and Muslims share a common heritage—a common ethical foundation underpinning our faiths that finds root in Abraham. Much of our theology overlaps. We have the same belief in God and prophecy. Approximately 90 per cent of Islamic law has evolved from Jewish law. Essentially, Jews and Muslims have a lot more in common to bring them together than that which divides them.’

        …but if life in Europe does become too uncomfortable for Jews, they will move to the United States or Israel, having accomplished the greatest act of revenge in history.

        Lawrence Auster, the Jewish convert to Christianity, writes in Why Jews Welcome Muslims:

        ‘The tragedy is that once a collective thought pattern gets deeply ingrained, as is the Jews’ historically understandable fear of gentiles, it takes on a life of its own and becomes immune to evidence and reason.’

        • Anton

          “Essentially, Jews and Muslims have a lot more in common to bring them together than that which divides them”

          Namely belief in a Creator God and denial that Jesus of Nazareth is divine. BUT the Quran insists that Abraham nearly sacrificed his son Ishmael, the ancestor of the Arabs, rather than his son Isaac the ancestor of the Jews. And it refers to Jews as “apes and pigs”. Both faiths also claim the same plot of land. No reconciliation is possible, only tactical alliance.

        • Sam

          So because I don’t buy into Christianity or Jesus (i don’t buy Islam’s teachings either) some kind of secular traitor? Get out of here Muppet!

        • bluedog

          ”Approximately 90 per cent of Islamic law has evolved from Jewish law.” But Islam left out the bit that counts, the Ten Commandments. This statement falls on this point.

        • dannybhoy

          “@ The Explorer—Jews and Muslims having collaborated in centuries past, Jews may have expected history to repeat itself today, failing to foresee (for which no one can blame them) that Arab oil wealth would lead to a new Islamic confidence and the international promotion of an Islam hostile to Jews. Collaboration is still on the cards…”
          That’s rubbish.

          “We have the same belief in God and prophecy.”

          That’s rubbish too.

          “Essentially, Jews and Muslims have a lot more in common to bring them together than that which divides them.”

          That’s even more rubbish.

          Spelling and punctuation’s good though…

          • @ dannybhoy—It is more productive to try to see these matters from the Jewish and Muslim standpoints. Understanding the enemy, and all that.

          • dannybhoy

            Your statements are illogical.

            The BIble says…
            Genesis 16>
            “9 Then the angel of the Lord told her, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her.” 10 The angel added, “I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.”
            11 The angel of the Lord also said to her:
            “You are now pregnant
            and you will give birth to a son.
            You shall name him Ishmael,[a]
            for the Lord has heard of your misery.
            12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;
            his hand will be against everyone
            and everyone’s hand against him,
            and he will live in hostility
            toward[b] all his brothers.”

            Most Biblical scholars consider Ishmael became the father of many Arab tribes,,

            Secondly the Islamic and Jewish understanding of God is so different as to be irreconcilable.
            Thirdly just as Christian Europe ill treated and persecuted the Jews, so the Muslim nations abused them. That is why when Israel was re-established the Jews in the Diaspora made their way or were brought to Israel.

          • CliveM


          • dannybhoy

            Thanks Clive baby…

          • CliveM

            Always a pleasure………..

      • Sam

        Interestingly one should always take Johnny and his quotes with a big pinch of metaphorical salt.

    • Sam

      You’d find any quotes to attack Jews and fit it all into your conspiracy theory. Judaism rejects Christianity and its central teachings then so do you and so what?

    • Anton

      Isn’t he forgetting Christian America?

      • Christian America hasn’t been forgotten. Part I of Michael Medved’s book Hollywood vs. America is called ‘The Poison Factory’. Part II is ‘The Attack on Religion’. Part III is ‘The Assault on the Family’, including the chapters ‘Promoting Promiscuity’, ‘Maligning Marriage’ and ‘Encouraging Illegitimacy’. Part IV is ‘The Glorification of Ugliness’, including ‘The Infatuation with Foul Language’, ‘The Addiction to Violence’ and ‘Bashing America’.

        The premise is that undermining cultural supports such as Christianity, marriage, the traditional family and decent behaviour will harm whites most of all—whites have a low level of ethnocentrism and rely all the more on those cultural supports. Jews are very strongly ethnocentric. Another cultural support was undermined, or rather hacked away completely, when Jewish organizations led the fight to abolish Christian prayers in American schools. Mark Steyn refers to the abolition itself here.

        • Anton

          Christian prayers in schools delayed my conversion considerably. Is Medved saying that Hollywood’s ghastly modern values are a Jewish plot?

          • Anton

            Secular people. The conspiracy is in the spiritual realms rather than the physical.

          • bluedog

            The Japanese, Sony-Columbia, and the Australians, Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox.

          • @ bluedog—Those are the owners. As the article explains, the studios are run by Jews, and have been for decades. On page 128 of Jewcentricity, Adam Garfinkle writes: ‘Everyone, even [Mel] Gibson, knows that many, even most, of the influential directors, producers, and agents in Hollywood, and in the bicoastal world of commercial television, are Jews.’ Garfinkle mentions Gibson in relation to The Passion of the Christ, which had to be financed and promoted by Gibson himself.

          • Ivan M

            What sticks to the mind about The Passion of Christ – I have not seen it BTW – is that Jewish organisations pulled out all stops to have it banned. Put up all kinds of stories about Gibson, pulled in his Da for good measure. In addition they willfully slandered Christians, claiming that Christians all over the world were chomping at the bit to slaughter Jews, and the movie was just the trigger needed to unleash the rabid dogs.

            When absolutely nothing happened – apart from some Palestinians claiming that they are the new Jesus – the silence from the same organisations was as that of a still night. This is illustrative of the method of these organs. Slander unapologetically, and when questioned claim immunity or good faith under the banner of the Holocaust.

          • CliveM

            Interestingly your little post also has the effect of exploding JR’s claim that Hollywood is run by Jews.

            It’s also a poor post.

          • @ CliveM—According to IMDb, The Passion of the Christ was filmed in Italy. My apologies for the tardiness.

          • CliveM

            Honda manufactures in the UK, it doesn’t make it a British company.
            Production company, Icon Productions, US based, Distribution company, Newmarket Films, US based.

          • @ CliveM—Clive, Icon is Mel Gibson’s company. Newmarket Films no longer exists but the names of its founders and executives don’t strike me as Jewish. I have never said, nor is it true, that Jews have total control of media in the US.

          • CliveM

            To quote;

            “As the article explains, the studios are run by Jews, and have been for decades.”

            Not much equivocation there.

          • @ CliveM—Clive, up to that point, the discussion had been wholly about Hollywood, and I was referring to Hollywood studios. If you are interested, pages lii to lvi of The Culture of Critique (PDF here) give a list of major Jewish media interests based in the US around the year 2000. On page lii is a quote from Michael Medved: ‘it makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in [US] popular culture. Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names. This prominent Jewish role is obvious to anyone who follows news reports from Tinsel Town or even bothers to read the credits on major movies or television shows.’

          • bluedog

            So what is your point? The Japanese and Murdoch are there in Hollywood to make money. If some of the most talented people who can successfully make commercially successful films are Jewish, so what? These Jews can only sell product that appeals to a largely Christian audience. Is that a crime? As for Mel Gibson, is it not significant that neither the Shinto Japanese nor the notionally Presbyterian Murdoch wanted to finance the film? Murdoch enjoys being provocative, but on this occasion declined the pleasure. Why?

          • @ bluedog—Allowing the media of a Christian country to be dominated by anti-Christians is ill-advised; I doubt Israel would allow its media to be dominated by anti-Semites. Murdoch is a Zionist.

          • bluedog

            Steady, there is so much prejudice in two short sentences its hard to deconstruct either of them.

            Let the last be first. So what if Murdoch is a Zionist. His political views on Israel appear to have not the slightest influence on the way he runs his media business.

            Your working assumption is that all Jews are anti-Christian. Not the ones I’ve known, they happily recognise that without Christianity there would probably be no Judaism, despite the Holocaust. If Islam conquers Christendom, the outlook for the Jews and for Israel is grim. So when you say ”allowing the media of a Christian country to be dominated by anti-Christians is ill-advised” its hard to see the context of your remark.

            Then: ” I doubt Israel would allow its media to be dominated by anti-Semites”. Is this a serious judgement? The media in any open economy has to make a profit. How could an anti-Semitic media group prosper in Israel? It would fold. Can’t you see that? And the same logic clearly applies to any Jewish owned media group in a Christian country. The customer is always right and you ignore them at your peril.

          • @ bluedog—I base my opinion of Jews on what Jews themselves have said and written about their enmity to Christianity and on actions such as, for example, their long campaign to open the United States to Muslim immigration. I have provided copious links and references on these threads. If you have evidence of world Jewry saying that Christianity is the best thing since sliced gefilte fish, please provide it.

            The quote in my first comment on this thread suggests that, for Jews, the grimmest outlook of all is the survival of Christianity, something I can entirely understand when looking from the Jews’ point of view. Whereas they see themselves as chosen, Christianity paints them as villains and has persecuted them in Europe for a thousand years. No matter that the ‘persecution’ was justified retaliation against extortionate money-lending, coldly efficient tax-gathering and the arenda system of estate management, the Jews see it differently.

            When I said ‘I doubt Israel would allow its media to be dominated by anti-Semites’, I thought it such an obvious point that a little understatement would not go amiss. I was wrong. No country in its right mind would allow its media to be dominated by an antipático community. For that matter, no country in its right mind makes itself multicultural. The only countries that did make themselves multicultural in the twentieth century were white and Christian. I draw a lesson from that. You choose not to. Time will tell which of us is the greater friend to Christianity.

    • Ivan M

      You know what is funny about these far-out rabbis, among whom gentile bashing is the norm, as for example with the big-timers, Schneerson and Ovadia Josef, is that if these were imams from Gaza, or like Quarwadi in Qatar, there would be no end of bellyache about how the Muslims hate the Christians and so on. There seems to be very little difference between the two.

  • Tom Jones

    Butler-Sloss is also a disgrace for what she has done in the realm of family law.

    • sarky

      Its not unusual.

      • Anton

        What’s new, pussycat?

        • Pubcrawler

          Has someone been on the green, green homegrown grass?

    • Anton

      What has she done, please?

  • alternative_perspective

    Im sorry but i agree with the report. It is merely reflecting reality. We do not live in a Christian country, the established church has what 25 lords out of 650, Christianity is perpetually misportrayed in the media and in the political establishment. The British people may believe in God but their belief is a long way from the Christian vision – if this were a Christian country Jesus would be honoured and recognised as the rightful Lord of this land, He isn’t, this isn’t a Christian country.

    The CoE talks about us being a post Christian society but has not truly faced up to this reality. Its still doing the same failed things in the same failed ways and holding on to the same systems of governance and organisation that has failed in it mission so radically.

  • preacher

    Many of us have seen this coming for decades, now the beast rises. The fact is that no one can alter or barter with the truth. One can accept or reject it & that is the only option. The gospel is that Jesus Christ came to pay the price for mankind’s sin, to save us from a judgement that we all deserved. that was & is God’s way, not man’s. The Bible says There is No other name given under Heaven but that of Jesus Christ by which man can be saved. The judge of humanity has given His verdict.
    Take it or leave it ! But it breaks my heart to see so called intellectuals trying to please people by trying to drag the gospel into the swamp of multi faith, multi culture, do as you like,all religions are the same error.
    I respect the freedom of choice that God allows all people & I respect the people who freely choose to reject the gospel, but that doesn’t make their choice right, & they or I will eventually find out the truth. Regrettably then it will be too late for a change of mind.
    Thank you Dr Cranmer for this posting & your stand for the truth of the Faith.

    • David

      Well said Preacher !

  • carl jacobs

    The wonderful thing about “generic spirituality” is that it moves the focus of religion. It no long matters what you believe. What matters is rather that you believe. Each man is free to define the transcendent any way he chooses – subject only to his acknowledgment that all truths are equally valid. Truth becomes the servant of human autonomy. Religion no longer has objective content. Only the individual gives life to it.

    The perfect theology for our narcissistic age.

    • Martin


      Indeed, the theology that puts me first, that makes the fact that I believe important.

      • Anton

        Complete with worship songs that are all about MY ecstatic experience of God, rather than about God Himself.

        • Martin


          Oh I so agree!!!

    • Albert

      And also perfectly incoherent:

      Each man is free to define the transcendent any way he chooses – subject only to his acknowledgment that all truths are equally valid.

      • carl jacobs

        There you go again – spouting obsolete pre-modern concepts like the Law of Non-Contradiction. I thought you were better educated than that.

        • Anton

          He is and he isn’t.

          • carl jacobs

            Well, you have to apply that “Catholic Bias Correction Factor.” The wonderful thing about error is that if you can observe it you can correct for it.


      • William Lewis

        Or, as that proto post modernist Pontius Pilate put it; “What is truth?”

        I couldn’t resist the alliteration.

    • IrishNeanderthal

      How about this from America? Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, following Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992):

      “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

      So this is the voice of SCOTUS, located in Washington. Perhaps it should be Pergamum.

      In 1937, Bertrand Russell wrote:

      “In the United States at the present day, the reverence which the Greeks gave to the oracles and the Middle Ages to the Pope is given to the Supreme Court. Those who have studied the working of the American Constitution know that the Supreme Court is part of the forces engaged in the protection of the plutocracy. But of the men who know this, some are on the side of the plutocracy, and therefore do nothing to weaken the traditional reverence for the Supreme court, while others are discredited in the eyes of the ordinary quiet citizens by being said to be subversive and Bolshevik.”

      If, on this issue, Bertrand Russell was sounding so like Chesterton, things must even then have been dire indeed.

  • carl jacobs

    BTW. Don’t look now but the CoE is the embodiment of Liberal Christianity. It needs to be disestablished to prevent the triumph of the agenda described in this post.

    • CliveM

      Interestingly that is one thing the report doesn’t recommend.

      School assembly replaced by a moral homily, less bishops in the House of Lords, a multi faith coronation (the arrogance of the committee) and other multi faith, liberal mush mash. But not disestablishment.

      • CliveM

        Forgot, also distruction of faith schools.

        • Dreadnaught

          No bad thing I say. I grew up in Liverpool which at the time was as sectarian as Belfast. Once out of nursery school you were split from your little pals according to you denomination. I hate the idea of ‘faith’ schools, especially as now the Muslims have landed; same goes for Jewish schools and all the rest; it does not make for social cohesion – exactly the opposite, and then we wonder why…

          • Martin


            Trouble is, not many Christians are happy with the church that schools must not belong to. I know a couple who are educating their children at home for that reason.

      • grutchyngfysch

        That’s because a neutered church that sings from the State’s hymnbook is always preferable to the loosed Church whose authority derives from the Gospel. You know exactly what the former will do – which is to say, not much – but the latter? Empires have shipwrecked themselves trying to destroy it.

        • CliveM

          Officially it’s because it helps other faith groups get their voice.

          But either way, it’s certainly not seen as a threat.

        • Anton

          Absolutely so.

    • alternative_perspective

      This is the underlying reason behind my comment. Unless the church wakes up to this reality it will be guilty of leading people to destruction.

  • bmudmai

    So, we should have less bishops in HoL and the Secularists say the report doesn’t go far enough as having 26 bishops isn’t representative of the country. Yet, bishops hold 26 seats out of 822, holding a grand total of 3.2% of the peers. According to the national surveys, 42% call themselves Christian. So maybe we should actually have more clergy in Lords to be more representative…

    On a different note, am I the only one who has noticed a greater anti-christian and pro-Islam rhetoric (mostly from the left) since the rise of ISIS?

    This is a small part of the rhetoric and more are seemingly inclined to agree and spurt out anti-christian rhetoric alongside agreeing with the report or suggesting it doesn’t go far enough.

    • Dreadnaught

      ISIS and Islam latched on to the phenominal propaganda power of the cyber-net years ahead of other religions and western politicians. Not rocket science either, indeed Dr No-Balls left that to Dr Von Braun 80 years ago.

    • Coniston

      Who actually set up this commission?

      • Royinsouthwest

        I think that it created itself – just like Richard Dawkins’ universe.

  • MyRightPenguin

    “A peerage does not bestow the authority to chip away at the foundations of the historic Anglican Settlement”

    Fair enough, but just don’t be complacent, a lot of “chipping away” has happened already.

    • chiefofsinners

      Much of it from the inside. Makes you wonder whether a bishopric bestows said authority.

      • Anton

        I can think of plenty of bishoprics…

        • IanCad

          Took me two days to get that.

  • Albert

    The reality is that, if you water down Christianity’s role in public life (as we are doing) what you get is a more secular society. Don’t we really therefore need a report on secularism in public life? What is secularism? What kind of secularism might be desirable? What kind of secularism are we actually getting? It’s odd that the position that we seem to be moving towards seems to get a free-pass when it comes to critical thinking and examination.

    This report is a case in point. The word “secular” is used 32 times. Never as far as I can see is it defined. That seems to me to be terribly compromising.

    Rowan Williams is a patron of this group. Can he not inject some intellectual seriousness into this group and the wider debate?

    • bluedog

      “Rowan Williams is a patron of this group. Can he not inject some intellectual seriousness into this group and the wider debate?” Not possibly. His commitment to Marxism is greater than his commitment to Druidism or Christianity. No man can serve three masters.

      • Albert

        That made me laugh!

  • David

    I applaud His Grace’s clear, short and incisive report which puts into context the origins of this slanted report, emanating from a slanted organisation. We are reminded that the Wolfe Institute exists for the purpose of pushing their multi-culti mish-mash agenda, so we are not to be surprised when it does just that. Daily, all around us we see the evidence that multiculturalism does not work, as it divides, not unites society. If the recommendations of this report were implemented it would surely increase tensions and divisions, by creating ever more confused and culturally rootless young people.
    “I am the way, the faith and the life. No man comes unto the Father except through me”.

  • Inspector General

    Butler-Sloss was on BBC Radio 5 yesterday morning. Spouting her unfathomable rot. It made no sense at all to the Inspector, who rather prides himself with his well higher than average IQ. Lord knows what white van man would have made of it.

    For those that find it hard to believe that entrenched attitudes of the religious, as well as those of the equally entrenched non-religious, can be accommodated to everyone’s satisfaction by meeting at a table, we have the likes of Butler-Sloss. That the meddling busybody silly thing is wasting her own, as well as many other people’s time, seems to have eluded her completely. Sadly she is not alone, and as with rats, we are never more than a few feet from some blasted academic planning our cultural demise ‘for the good of humanity’ but certainly not for the indigenous who want nothing to do with the religion of peace or the stark bleakness that atheism has for us. It’s enough to make a fellow quake with outrage…

    Still, it’s better than working for a living, what!

    • IanCad

      You put it so very well.

  • Inspector General

    Gah! Still angry over this…

    Does any academic really appreciate the truth about immigration? Why people are desperate to sneak into our country? IT IS TO GET AWAY FROM WHERE THEY CAME FROM. Including getting well clear of that uncivilised evil called Islam. If they miss the bloody prophet that much, they can always go back to where they once belonged. We won’t think any the worse of them for doing so. Really!

    • dannybhoy

      Absolutely right there Inspector.
      We have a thousand years of historical development behind us, and despite our failings (and yes, we have them) the rest of the world including Muslims and others from third world countries are anxious to come here.
      It is Christianity which has allowed for the growth of science and social infrastructure and moral probity which has shaped us.
      Not Hinduism/Islam/Rastafarianism/Buddhism/Atheism, or any other faith or ‘ism’
      These treacherous people are hellbent on destroying the very institutions and values that have enabled us to maintain a stable, free and just society.
      Sorry, but when it comes to the survival of our nation these people need to be sent to a non Christian nation of their choice.

  • Inspector General

    Any chance of Butler-Sloss getting herself over to Syria to arrange a “Commission on Religion and Belief in Arab Public Life”. Doesn’t seem right that this great intellect isn’t shared out to those who need her more, and will appreciate her meddling just as much as we do…

    Look, we are getting close to 70 million in this overcrowded country. About 4 million are muslims. Why does anyone want to change the British way of doing things to cater for these recent blow ins. Are they whining about their rights? No! Is anybody whining about perceived rights on their behalf? Yes! Nuisance white academics are.

    Be gone, the lot of you, or must you be physically removed…

    • CliveM

      Who do we get rid of? The Muslims or the white, liberal academics? In the long tee I know who is the most dangerous (and no the don’t wear niqabs

      • Inspector General

        Not really sure what we can do to shame the academic, other than to point out that they are academics because the wouldn’t last more than a week in the real world, where they would be reliant on their efforts for an income…

        • CliveM

          I’ll tell you something truly scary, a greater proportion of British Muslims will be supportive of traditional British values, then white liberal academics.

          I estimate probably 0% of white, liberal academics are supportive of British values.

          They have no shame.

          • James60498 .

            I would entirely agree with you Clive, except that the white liberals have put themselves in charge of defining British values.

  • Merchantman

    Quite apart from the fact that this is treasonous and these tykes should be whisked off to the Tower smartish; the timing is appalling. Coming on the heels of the jihadist outrider massacres in Paris and San Bernardino this is further proof that the Shloshista’s and their ilk just don’t Get It. Pour me another one will you?

  • bluedog

    Your Grace, fear not, even Cameron will throw his complimentary copy of the Slush report into a corner, never to be seen again. Tinkering with the next Coronation, which could come before 2020, would be electoral death and he knows it. The next Coronation will be an opportunity to celebrate and re-affirm British values, as Christianity must be described in the obfuscating terms that suit the multi-faith age.

    But on the wider topic of Islam, your communicant notes with unalloyed pleasure the comments of the Vice-Chancellor of Germany, appropriately named Gabriel. This angel Gabriel has expressed concern about a Saudi plan to finance the construction of 200 mosques in Germany to cater for the spiritual needs of the Syrian settlers (many financed by Saudi Arabia) in Germany. Could this be the start of a European epiphany about the nature of the threat? There is cause for optimism.

    With its oil income surely taking a hammering from low prices and with the Saudi royal family apparently riven by factions bickering over the succession, could the Saudi kingdom be close to collapse? If so, what a possibility! If the Saudi kingdom collapses into civil war and poverty, Allah will have judged it and found it wanting. One could go further, and suggest to the ummah that by cutting off the head of the snake in the form of the Saudi kingdom, Allah has judged Wahhabism and found it wanting. How can the faithful follow beliefs that Allah condemns?

    Go forth Your Grace, the day of the judgement of Islam is at hand.

    • Phil R

      Also France seems to have woken up big time.

      Marion Le Pen is the one to watch.

      Good for her (and especially good for France) but it is a shame that there seem to be no men in France willing to speak up for France.

    • Inspector General

      Springtime for the House of Saud in 2016, Bluers, surely not!

      But then, the Roman’s were meant to last forever…

    • Royinsouthwest

      Usually when a government is overthrown in the Middle East it is replaced by something worse. Would Saudi Arabia be any different?

      • dannybhoy

        Something to ponder..

        • IanCad

          Kinda hits the nail on the head. Superbly done.
          Thanks Danny.

      • bluedog

        Hopefully not.

      • johnb1945

        Potentially ISIS or similar expansionist Jihadi group.

        This is a serious issue.

        How do you think a blustering, ruthless, populist demagogue like prospective President Trump may decide to deal with an oil rich Jihadi state holding us to ransom over oil prices and acting as a credible extremist caliphate for all Sunni Muslims globally?

        I’ll give you a hint.

        It involves mushroom clouds and millions and millions and millions of casualties.

        First in the Gulf, then extending to any majority Muslim country which “steps out of line”.

        So be careful what you wish for.

    • Pubcrawler

      The Saudis are reaping the whirlwind as far as the oil price war is concerned.

      Let’s hear it for shale!

      • Anton

        It’s the Saudis who are setting the price of oil; they reckon they can outlast their competitors at low prices before raising them again.

        • Pubcrawler

          Indeed. The article suggests that it’s hurting them more than they bargained for. Who will blink first?

        • Ivan M

          And who set them up for it? How did they get into their minds that they can undermine Russian market share, without substantially affecting their own total income? What is the payoff? Good riddance I say, but it is worth asking if the crazies in Washington are happy goading the Saudis to self-destruct.

          • Anton

            That’s actually how we won the Cold War, so it’s not a bad tactic. But the Saudis are playing their own game, not Washington’s: they want to stop Iran getting into the world oil market now that Obama has foolishly lifted sanctions on that regime. When you look at the Middle East today, think Sunni vs Shia.

        • johnb1945

          They are currently mincing their cash reserves.

          The trouble is, no Saud, then what?

          ISIS or similar?

          It’s possible, and if an expansionist Jihadi group controls the Islamic holy sites, and especially if someone like Trump sits in the White House, then we are on a fast track to nuclear holocaust in the gulf.

      • IanCad

        Problem is though; it only costs $5.00 to suck up a barrel of Saudi oil.
        In the Bakken field it is closer to $50.00.

    • Anton

      Yes, but Mecca and Medina will still be there and a leader will emerge.

      • IanCad

        Unless the West gets so mad it sends in the D-10’s.

    • johnb1945

      Please be careful what you wish upon Saudi Arabia. Harsh, literalistic, distasteful to Christian eyes, certainly.

      But for all that, certain key traits make it (just) preferable to ISIS or any other explicitly expansionist Salafi Jihadist groups.

      And ISIS and their ilk await.

      Combine prospective Salafi JIhadi control of oil fields and Islamic holy sites with a Trump presidency and US oil independence and therein lies a recipe for liberal use of nukes.

      It would be better to pray that none of the apocalyptic scenarios which are foreseeable come to pass.

  • Royinsouthwest

    Presumably the theologians in the Woolf Institute, if not the Baroness, will be familiar with the verse Joshua 24:15.

    And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

    How many theologians today would choose the Lord?

  • chiefofsinners

    Church savaged by sheep in Woolf’s clothing. Stop! It tickles.

  • len

    Christianity is under attack on all sides(nothing new here) We have secularists, atheists, humanists, evolutionists,& Muslim extremists all who seem to favour the frontal assault, and then those who more deceptively attack from within these are the cultists false teachers the false prophets and those who are only in it to extract whatever they can get out of Christianity for themselves. This doesn`t even count ‘the closet Christians’ who think they have bought a ticket to Heaven as ‘an insurance policy’ and do little else…
    Does any of this this bother God ?.I don`t think so because God is only interested in those seeking His Truth and as this is evident for all to see( if they are genuinely seeking Truth above all else )and Gods Truth rules out all false paths to God as Jesus Christ is the Only Way and this will become apparent to Truth seekers…
    So ‘multi faith’ is just a satanic deception much as atheism is………

    • David

      Well said Len, and nicely put too.

  • sarky

    apologies for being totally off topic, but this article really touched me. It would be lovely if we could add this little girl to our christmas card lists.

    • Royinsouthwest

      You are right about that Sarky. I hope she gets many Christmas cards and that eventually she will make a good recovery from her injuries.

    • dannybhoy

      Well done Sarky. Hadn’t seen this before. She is going to need so much love and support -and cards..

  • IanCad

    “–the Anglican canopy permits and protects the fundamental freedoms of religious argument and belief.”
    So very true! Any fiddling will dilute further the robust disputations once tolerated.

  • Mike Stallard

    O loathe what Anglicanism has become.
    But its huge strength is that it provides a sort of highest common factor for everyone whatever their beliefs. Thus, on November 11th (or thereabouts) everyone can, without shame or compromise, attend the war memorial. At Christmas, everyone can listen to carols, or even attend a service of Carols and Lessons too. Burials done by Anglican Grannies are better by far than Humanist one done by Bearded Humanists.

  • Bob Frost

    Your Grace,

    I can’t think of any successful nation which does not have a common founding myth (Arthurian legend etc), origin myth (see Genesis/God the Father) and language (English in our case).

    Apart from (obviously) Belgium. 😉

  • Russell Brown

    In 1982 I had a vision at a papal mass in the UK (as a Catholic) of the pope becoming Satan. I was then told by an angel to show my Catholic family Revelation 17/18. So let us avoid this multi faith deception, All the evidence points towards Sergus the Roman Catholic monk as partly creating Islam as a geopolitical force to capture Jerusalem for the pope.

    • len

      St. John of Damascus, one of the first Christians to write against Islam, wrote in the 8th century:

      ‘This man [Muhammad], after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Catholic Arian monk, Raheb Bahira (Sergius the Monk) devised his own heresy.’

      Trust in Jesus Christ the only Mediator, the Only way, the only Truth, and the Only Life Giver.

      • Yavver

        St John of Damascus wrote about a ‘Catholic Arian monk’ did he? and in the middle of the Arabian desert around 500 A.D. Please tell me what a ‘Catholic Arian’ is and what one was doing in the middle of Arabia.